Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final
Mark Davis ☕️
mark at macchiato.com
Tue Mar 28 00:57:52 CDT 2017
To add to what Ken and Markus said: like many other identifiers, there are
a number of different categories.
1. *Ill-formed: *"$1"
2. *Well-formed, but not valid: *"usx". Is *syntactic* according to
but is not *valid* according to
3. *Valid, but not recommended: "usca". *Corresponds to the valid
Unicode subdivision code for California according to
and CLDR, but is not listed in http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/.
4. *Recommended:* "gbsct". Corresponds to the valid Unicode subdivision
code for Scotland, and *is* listed in
As Ken says, the terminology is a little bit in flux for term
'recommended'. TR51 is still open for comment, although we won't make any
changes that would invalidate http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/.
I would also encourage people to look at the slides on
http://unicode.org/emoji/, together with the speaker notes, since some of
those slides present this very issue. I'm sure the people on this list will
have some useful comments for improvements.
Another item: with Tayfun's help, we updated
http://unicode.org/press/emoji.html. If people have any feedback on other
articles that should be on that list, please let us know...
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Markus Scherer <markus.icu at gmail.com>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr>
>> I followed the links. Check your links, you are referencing the proposal,
>> and this contradicts the published version 4.0 of TR51. Where is stability ?
> Of course I am pointing to the proposal. The version of TR 51 under review
> adds a mechanism that didn't exist before. It's an addition, not a
> contradiction. Once it's there it will be stable.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode